Talk:Tsitsernavank Monastery

Artsakh Mid‑importance

	Tsitsernavank Monastery is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad#Artaxiad. Grandmaster (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the CSD tag from this page. As I understand it G5 is a tool to allow articles created by banned users to be deleted, not that all articles created by banned users have to be deleted. Looking through the web this does seem to be a notable historic building and could be certainly expanded. If other editors are not convinced I suggest the best re-course would be to go via AFD to gain greater concensus. ^Khukri 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Khukri! This is a really significant topic and surely must be represented at Wiki. And Im agree to check its content and expand it!Andranikpasha (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik, the Lachin region is under occupation of Armenian forces not under control of the unrecognized "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", if you have doubts about the wording, please, refer to the UN SC resolutions on the topic. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Atabek it is under control of Karabakh forces! Current Kashatagh is not an Armenian district, but that of NK. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) And pls dop not remove the sourced word of native! Its important to represent the history how it was, without falsifications. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik, "Karabakh forces" is your interpretation of Armenian forces, hence not neutral. "NK" is not a recognized entity, and in fact Lachin was never part of NKAO, it's an occupied district of Azerbaijan. Hence using the name "Kashatagh" for a region that whole world calls Lachin is completely unencylopedic. Armenian history is not "native" to Lachin district, since the population of it was always predominantly non-Armenian prior to occupation. Atabek (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot find "Kashatagh" on any map published by a reputable source. Presenting it as something legitimate is not appropriate. Grandmaster (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its out of our topic the history of NKAO, the history of Armenian Artsakh, we just marked that this land is officially recognized as a part of Azerbaijan and that de facto an Armenian (also Armenian populated) district exists there right now! F.e. if anyone wants to see this church, the only way to receive visa of NK officials, not that of Azerbaijan. We have a discussed refirect for Kashatagh, so whats the problem. And lets to not make propagand here: native Armenian is surely related to the style of building (as about the land its discussed between Armenia and Azerbaijan and also out of this topic). Lets assume good faith, anyways its an article on culture not politics. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only have this article watchlisted as I saved it from deletion though I'm not an expert on the subject. But please may I remind all editors that wikipedia requires verification of information and that while sometimes contentious from a local point view the article must represent names, countries etc recognised by the international community. Also as has been already written, it's a building and to be honest a very interesting one reading the history here, together make the article a good one please. ^Khukri 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khukri, as you correctly noted, the article must represent names and countries recognized by the international community. Lachin is internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan republic, occupied and ethnically cleansed by the Armenian forces. We have an article about Lachin district of Azerbaijan. Presenting the name ("Kashatag") invented by illegal and unrecognized separatist authorities as a legitimate one compromises factual accuracy of this article. Grandmaster (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure on neutrality of Khukri so I had to agree with what he wrote. Grandmaster represented his view. Now Im representing mine. Lets leave to Khukri as a neutral person to decide how to write the part related to district: it can be a consensus.

Lachin is recognized as de jure part of Azerbaijan (thats what we mark first in the article), it never means the international community supports the Azerbaijani side. Historically it was a part of Armenian kingdom, Armenians was suppressed there its why the conflict between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijan happened, and untill now Armenians live there (it is one of the centers of Armenian Christian culture, see the cited site) and the name of Kashatagh has not only de facto (since 1992-94) usage, but this region is a matter of official discussions between Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities for a peaceful decision over Nagorno-Karabakh. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate. The region was not a part of Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy, and is not subject to any discussion. The Armenian population of the region before the occupation was equal to zero, and the actual population (ethnically Azerbaijani and Kurdish) was forced to flee. The region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and this is unlikely to change. Grandmaster (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I'm not an expert on the subject though if you wish my input I will read up on the matter over the next couple of days. But first of all using phrases like ethnically cleansed is a sure fire way of not calming a discussion, no matter what the truth of the matter is. Also I find it unusual that Kashatagh is redirected straight to Lachin (rayon). I will read up on the issue and see if I can see some middle ground. Cheers ^Khukri 13:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire population of the region is forced to flee, what else can it be called, considering that this is what many international organizations call it? I would appreciate your further involvement in this issue, thanks in advance. Grandmaster (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue actually is not such a huge problem, it can be resolved by choosing more appropriate wording. Any suggestions are welcome. Grandmaster (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, lets to not comment each others views with the words like occupation and ethnic cleansing but just leave our opinions as Khukri says he will try to find a consensus! I also think this is the best way for all of us. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I'm not an international mediator and never will be but I've had a look at the article from the perspective of the building itself, and trying to create a base for a decent article. Having originally looked through the material I was originally inclined to remove the NK reference completely, as it is not internationally recognised..... but I then stumbled upon this comment "In the circles of international law there is no universal formula for the supremacy of territorial integrity over the right of self-determination of people." which I think summed up the situation. So I've left the NK references in the article though tried to re-word it so as to appear neutral from both sides, it references the NK page but doesn't cast judgment on it using words like control, etc.

Now in my honest opinion, I believe that's it location within a politically controversial location should remain at one line, and that alot more information should be added to this article. There are plenty of articles that describe to locations situation and this one doesn't need to be another. So I set a challenge to all those who have discussed this article to turn this article into at least a good article or get a did you know? out of it. Who made it, why, what were their motivations, how has the building fared during wars, and the changing face of Europe, Asia and the Causasus, what prompted the restoration, what else is notable about the building, why was it built so early, how has it lasted all these years? It's a pretty unique building in my opinion and I'd like those who know about the area to add to this article. I have this article watchlisted so I can help all you wish. Cheers ^Khukri 08:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are no independent sources to support the existence of this monument. And such buildings are often used to justify the claims to the land, therefore sources representing both sides are not mush reliable. So it is a hard task to actually improve the article due to the lack of reliable sources. Grandmaster (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the monument itself exists so doesn't need supporting documentation ;). You say is often used to justify do you know that for sure with this case. Even if documentation has been published by Ming the Merciless's propaganda press, it's still a source, and the actual history of the building is unlikely to be contentious, just possibly the use of the building or it's position. I know editors from these regions are often at odds, looking at your editing you most probably know more editors from this region than I do. We can reference books, etc so if anyone can find documentation on this building locally, then that can be referenced and added to the article. ^Khukri 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that you cannot rely on accuracy of archaeological info, the age of the building etc, if it is not confirmed by an independent source. I have no doubt that there's some sort of a building there, but is it actually as old as it is claimed to be or it is a recent construction? Grandmaster (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, who to not read Italian sources of article at first? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the article not the editor please. OK lets turn these points around, instead of saying what we can't do, lets find out what can be done. Lets not be negative, please try and be positive and find information that can be put in. It's easier to find reasons why not to do something than to do it, hence the reason it's called hard work ;) ^Khukri 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. We need as many reliable (preferably third party) sources as possible. I'll try searching for some. Grandmaster (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can I use an armenian source at least for the traditional story of building as it is an Armenian holy site (Grandmaster, it surely exists, I was there with a group of tourists...)? I dont know if we can find foreign sources on St Gregory Illuminator's activities in Kashatagh (I prefer to see this name at article anyhow) and other provinces of Armenian kingdom. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that was the first link I found when I started to look for this, and along with your Italian link I think enough information can be extracted to give a good base. As for the use of Kashatagh, as I said above the Wikipedia article re-directs to Lachin, I think we have the location pretty well covered in one line so I'm not sure if we wish to keep including contested names into the article. There is already one article in Russian referenced, and the fact that both of you have similar language bases inc Russian means we aren't restricted to just using English, and I trust the two of you to extract the pertinent information from non English/French sites. Cheers ^Khukri 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Khukri, I added some! Feel free to edit if anything is uncorrect. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed inaccurate claim that Lachin is part of NK. It is located outside of the borders of former NKAO and is not part of the territory claimed by Armenia. Please see the map of NK, Lachin is located outside of its borders. [1] Lachin is just a district in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Grandmaster, you're not right! Lachin is a part of NK region, and a part of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It just wasnt a part of NKAO with borders by Stalin. Pls do not reword admin's mediation! Andranikpasha (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Location: 10 km from the village of Khonotsakh, near Lachin, Karabagh"[2]. We even dont mark that the Lachin is under Armenian control, otherwise if it was just in Azerbaijan, surely it will be closed as no any Armenian church is allowed to be opened in the country. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NK is a region with fixed borders, while Karabakh in general is a large region. Instead of edit warring, please check the map of NKAO first. Grandmaster (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has NK region fixed borders? Any sources? I dont need to check any historical map included that of NKAO as another historical one of Armenian Kingdom says all the modern Karabakh was included in the Homeland of Armenians, so what? We have two modern terms - NKR (recognized or unrecognized, its a factually republic) and NK as a region. NKAO is out of our topic. It was a Soviet autonomy formed by Stalin's direction and doesnt exist since 1991. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does:

"Нагорный Карабах - историческая область в Закавказье. Площадь 4,4 тыс. кв. км.". Новый энциклопедический словарь. Издательство: "Большая Российская энциклопедия", Москва, 2004. ISBN 5-85270-194-7.

As you see, its territory is equal in its size to the territory of NKAO, which means it does not include Lachin. Parishan (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an OR? Anyways thanks for the interesting research:)Andranikpasha (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "Is it an OR"? I just showed you a documented source with an ISBN number. Parishan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, please stop refering to admin state or intervention as your rationale for reverting in edit summaries. My role as an adminstrator is irrelevant in regards to this article all I did was removed a CSD tag, the rest is as a normal editor. Regards. ^Khukri 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, Ağoğlan qəsri, yields 2 actual results on google, one from an Azeri wikipedia contributor, and the other from an unofficial Azeri site.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ağoğlan is the name of the area not the name of the monastery. VartanM (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no area in Azerbaijan called Ağoğlan. Please avoid OR. Here are some Azerbaijani sources referring to this complex/monastery as Ağoğlan: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Parishan (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? See the first source (the only one thats in English) you provided, the river Agoglan. It say also Monastery on river Agoglan. It also conveniently places it as Albanian, like every other Armenian monument. Interesting and credible site indeed. We have here the Agoglan tower [7], Agoglan temple [8], Agoglan castle [9] but most hits refer to the river Agoglan. There is no official Azerbaijani name for the place. VartanM (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content does not matter in this case. We are discussing the use of the term. The fact is, the term is encountered and used by Azeris to designate this particular monastery, and it is not like the phrase 'Agoglan monastery' is not used anywhere. The fact that it is also a name of a river does not prove a thing. There are rivers in Azerbaijan, called Ganja, Lankaran, Nakhchivan, Shamkir, Astara, etc. but it does not mean cities with the same names do not have official Azeri names. Parishan (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lachin corridor connects occupied NK with Armenia, it was fought by Armenian forces in order to have this corridor to Armenia. If there really was "so called de-facto independent Karabakh" there would be no necessity to open a corridor to Armenia, would it? So VartanM, Andranikpasha, and other folks, please, adjust your POV and use the wording reflected in the relevant UN, PACE, and other documents. Atabek (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek and other folks! Before doing radicalist POV edits its better to source a little existed material and to not change what we have with your own opinions on liberation of historical Armenian Artsakh and self-determination of its peaceful inhabitants terrorized by different forces since 1918. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how your opinion about "liberation of historical Armenian Artsakh" is not POV? Grandmaster (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a POV too! The difference is that Im not putting that POV to the article, like Atabek done. And pls, do not change consensused variant with your preffered one as CIA is not the only source. Pls be civil and discuss it! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

Tzitzernavank Monastery - "vank" means monastery, so really there is no need to use the word monastery in the article's title. Nobody, including English speakers, would call it "Tzitzernavank Monastery" they would call it "Tzitzernavank". In addition, the use of the word "monastery" in such a position suggests that the church was built as a monastic church (which is not certain) or that it is still used as a monastery (which it is not). Meowy 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non existing project tag removed [10]. Replaced with Azerbaijan tag, as the monastery complex is located on internationally recognized and occupied part of Azerbaijan outside of even Nagorno-Karabakh. Atabek (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "top importance" tag just added by Atabek. There is no legitimate reason to think an article about a medieval Armenian church is of an importance equal, for example, to the Nagorno Karabagh war. Meowy 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought some clarification to situation of Lachin region, where it's located, controlled and renamed by who. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the name "Kashatagh" - it is important to give the current de-facto name of the district as well as the de-jure one. Meowy 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was there, so I don't understand who you could put it back. I fixed obvious POV, since de-jure non-existent "NKR" has no authority to rename the territory of a de-facto state. Also, I removed the unsourced claim that "Kashatag" was medieval name of Lachin per WP:V. Grandmaster (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "fix POV", you reverted the whole edit, which included reverting to wording which had content which was clearly wrong (wording that implied that it was still being used as a monastery, for example). The name "Kashatag" wasn't invented out of thin air, it was the original name of the district, and was used from the 13th century onwards. Before that the name used was "Aghahejk" - but the older name was used to define a larger area than what is now Kashatag/Lachin. I've added a source. Your "no authority" claim is silly, those who live in or have territorial control over a place can call that place by whatever name they want, and in most cases de-facto names for obscure places should be given at least equal weight on Wikipedia. Meowy 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable sources, not Karapetyan. We have discussed this extreme nationalist before. And yes, "NKR" does not legally exist, therefore it has no authority to rename the territory of legally existing states. Grandmaster (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be moved to Tzitzernavank. "Vank" already means monastery in Armenian. How is Samvel Karapetian an extreme nationalist again? Hakob (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read his interview to de Waal, it is pretty obvious. Plus, it is not a third party source, as the rules require. Grandmaster (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule saying we have to abide by Thomas de Waal's label of Samvel Karapetyan being a nationalist. He is an expert on the architecture of the region and what some journalist's opinion of him (or yours, for that matter) is does not in any way negate the facts of the information on the church. Can you please direct us to which Wikipedia rule that specifies that only third-party sources must be used?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I thought you knew that by now. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (Btw, this article so far has not used a single decent third party source).

Or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_specific_source_types:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

This one is also of interest: Wikipedia:Independent sources.

Karapetyan is neither reliable, nor third party, and nor third party published. As for him being a chauvinist, it is not just opinion of de Waal, everyone can read his interview to that author and see that Karapetyan expresses racist views about Azerbaijanis and Turks. How such a source could be considered reliable? And you would not be happy if I started using Azerbaijani sources here, they say things quite the opposite to what Armenians say. So please stick to neutral sources that have no conflict of interest on the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not spending time on this childishness. The source is perfectly acceptable, if you had access to the source you would know that its presentation of the name's history (it gives medieval examples which use that place name) removes any question of doubt. And if you knew anything about the region you would know the info about the placename was true and so obviously true that a source was never actually needed for that bit of info. Meowy 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For such controversial issues we should use neutral sources.--Dacy69 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, okay, so can you please pinpoint exactly where in Karapetyan's book do we find inconsistencies and factual mistakes? His views on the Karabakh conflict and Azeris notwithstanding, where exactly do see the problems in what he claims? I doubt you can create an argument on the basis of simply claiming that because "A" holds this view, any and all conclusions he makes about "B" thus renders him unfit and unreliable as a source.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a neutral source, it has a strong bias in this issue and as such is not reliable. Simple as that. Grandmaster (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historians, and all individuals in that case, naturally come with biases, some simply are far more subtle than others. You cannot dismiss an entire source simply on the grounds of their positions. You're going to have to start bringing out some concrete examples of unreliability. I'm curious, when you review a book, do you simply judge the book's usefulness and effectiveness solely on the positions of the author?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the wiki rules about the sources? I suggest you do. This article needs to be deleted altogether as it cites no third party sources at all. If you really want to improve it, find some. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have it. Grandmster is not interested in improving this article, he is interested only in using Wikipedia a medium for the distribution of propaganda. Because this article goes contrary to that propaganda, he responds by saying it needs to be completely deleted. The very first entry on this talk page was one by Grandmaster about his desire to have the whole article deleted. His desire was rejected on that occasion on the grounds that Tzitzernavank is a notable monument. Six months later, the article contains much more interesting, informative, and properly cited material - reinforcing that original decision to keep the article. Meowy 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. Personal attacks like: "Grandmaster is not interested in improving this article, he is interested only in using Wikipedia a medium for the distribution of propaganda" are not acceptable, and it is very ironic that you make such claims, when this article in its current form is nothing but pro-Armenian propaganda. It is not "properly sourced", it relies only on Armenian sources, which have an obvious conflict of interest here. If you used proper sources, there would be no problems here. Grandmaster (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The fact that the region was formerly called Kashatagh (and Aghahejk) and was not known as Lachin since time immemorial is pro-Armenian propaganda? I don't think Meowy was doing any "edit warring," he has been trying to improve the article - a simple glance at the history of his edits on this page would reveal that. Reporting him is only going to make things worse, just like recklessly adding all those contributors to the Arbcom did (what a colossal mistake). Sorry, but there is only so much good faith one can assume. Hakob (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, before this fracas was initiated, Meowy had proposed that the article be moved to Tzitzernavank. Everyone agree? Any disagreements? Hakob (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking is to use reliable third party source, as per wiki rules. And I don't mind the article move. Grandmaster (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, assuming good faith has its limits. One should always assume good faith on first contact with someone's edits. However, if over time I feel there is evidence that good faith is lacking in many of an editor's edits and other activities on Wikipedia, then there is no need to continue assuming it exists. The sources used in this article are reliable. I don't think you are dismissing them because they are unreliable, or even because they are mostly Armenian, but because they disagree with aspects of a current propaganda-line emanating from Azerbaijan. Meowy 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search and Tsitsernavank seems to return more results than Tzitzernavank. Most of the sources cited in the article also seem to use this spelling. Hakob (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Tzitzernavank may be closer to the actual pronounciation. I don't know since I've never actually heard anyone speaking the name! "Tsit" suggests the "t" and the "s" sounds are differentiated, but "Tz" is more like a single sound. Is the name is pronounced like "t-si-t-serna-vank", or more like "zzi-zzerna-vank"? Meowy 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "z" sound isn't heard in its pronunciation. Western Armenians may begin the word with a "D" and, unintentionally, subsequently pronounce the "z" sound" but a close rendition of the sound could be seen in the Russian letter "Ц" (although the equivalent of this letter in Armenian would in fact be "Ց, ց", like the "ts" in "cats"). Divided into syllables, it would be "Tsi-tser-na-vank."--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "ts" at the end of a word is generally pronounced like that "ts" in "cats", but "ts" at the start of a word is not generally pronounced like that: they are mostly seen in foreign words and those words mostly start with a "z" sound like "tsar" - which wouldn't be correct in this case, would it? I don't know which would be best. Neither do the sources! Karapetian uses Tzitzernavank, Hasratyan uses Tsitsernavank, Donabedian uses Cicernavank'. But, since it's your language being rendered into English - you choose! Meowy 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well even the word "tsar" should not have a "z" sound to it (many erroneously use the form "czar") but I guess we should just go with precedent: the Tsitsernakaberd article uses the "Tsi" form so this is the best and most accurate rendition in English possible.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy, those are all valid. Romanization of Armenian lists "ts" as well as "c" for Ծ. Hakob (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Someone, apparently by accident, created an article called Tsitsernavank. So we can probably move the content from this article to that one and simply make this page a redirect.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Country

Acoording to the map created by United Nations, Nagorno Karabakh region is a part of Azerbaijan. Please, stop unhealthy nationalism and letting misinformation! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: could you just tell me how to access the site once you're in Azerbaijan? Sardur (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an occupied region by Armenian and Russian troops. --Quzeyli 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quzeyli (talk • contribs)

I prefer the word "inhabited" (on their ancestral homeland). Serouj (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When will Azeris accept that the homeland of the Caucasian Albanians (their CHRISTIAN ancestors) was EAST of the Kura river? That is to say, it was NOT the mountainous region of Armenia!?! Open a historical atlas for crying out loud! Serouj (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region ^[1]. or here
They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad^[2]. or here
Despite a ten-year ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, about 528,000 of the 800,000 ethnic Azeris from the Nagorno-Karabakh region remained internally displaced^[3]. or here

Please, check references.--144.122.135.88 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No link with the monastery. The article should represent the current knowledge and the current situation, and give the most useful informations. It should not be transformed into an irredentist article; do I have to remind you that your "Lachin Rayon" only exists on paper? Sardur (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are about location of monasteries which have been occupied.

"Current knowledge": Nagorno-Karabakh still is a part of Azerbaijan and near 1 million Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds are refugee from there. "Current situation": Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. see ref --144.122.135.88 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are about monasteries. Keep your point to the NKR article and stop your disruptive behaviour. Sardur (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proved and edited just formal location of monasteries, not historical and architectural info of these monasteries. Stop separatist propaganda! --144.122.135.88 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsitsernavank is not mentionned in any of your links. Sardur (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are about the location of monasteries which has been occupied. The monasteries are in the borders of Azerbaijan. --Hay-siken (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Open Your Blind Eyes

That monastery is located in AZERBAIJAN! Stop propaganda in WIKIPEDIA! --144.122.250.211 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. or here
They recalled that following the 1991-1994 armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a substantial part of the region's population was forced to flee their homes and are still living as displaced persons in those countries or as refugees abroad. or here
Despite a ten-year ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan, about 528,000 of the 800,000 ethnic Azeris from the Nagorno-Karabakh region remained internally displaced. or here

Are`t they enough for you to believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan Republic? You just abuse confidence of Wikipedia for your separatist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dişi-BOZQURD (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Dişi-BOZQURD (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop slandering. This tactic will not work on me, I am not like others. If you try it again, I will do official apply to Wikipedia because you do it by organized way. Kardashians (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your meat/sock puppetry. If you don't, nobody will listen to you. Sardur (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Dear all, I have been asked to comment on this article most probably due to my involvement when it was almost deleted a few years ago. Please do not revert anymore changes until they have been discussed here, before anyone comments that it is the incorrect version, I would like you to read this about m:The Wrong Version. I have not currently protected the article and would like to suggest all editors from this point stop reverting backwards and forwards and tone down the rhetoric, there's too much talk of vandalism and abuse in edit summaries. I have seen little effort on these talk pages of dispute resolution just assertion of facts with few supporting sources, and then reciprocal assertions without basis.

We will sort this article using the tools at our disposal, i.e. discussion, reliable sources, verifibility and not original research or heresay. I fully appreciate the national interests in articles like this and though I'm not an expert in the subject I am neutral and to overcome my lack of expertise I would all parties when they reply to include the sources for their comments.

A few key points as I understand it please give references when disputing any statement, I've kept them simple to allow for yes or noes.

1) Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not internationally recognised

2) The Nagorno-Karabakh region is currently within the borders of Azerbaijan

3) The Church of Caucasian Albania no longer exists

4) Historically this church was in Armenia, and it's construction has been compared to other Armenian churches and monastries of that time

Are any of the statements incorrect?

Cheers ^Khukri 11:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Just one comment: The Nagorno-Karabakh region is de-jure currently within the borders of Azerbaijan. De-facto this has almost nothing in common with the reality.

And one question: So what is your opinion on reverting Verman1's edits?

Thanks, -- Ashot ^(talk) 11:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that this monastery is inside Azerbaijan's internationally recognized territory. Therefore, any kind of efforts trying to show this land as territory of another country is incorrect. Caucasian Albanian church doesn't exist any more, but it doesn't mean that this church is not Caucasian Albanian. Moreover, when "historically" this church was in Armenia? Verman1 (talk)

I have no opinion on reverting Verman1's edits until I see responses to my questions above, as I stated above there is always a wrong version. I have also just reverted back to the version when I left this message. I ask all editors involved to firstly answer the questions I have posed above and we will take the resolution from there, to work a middle ground. Please do not continually revert which will escalate the dispute, for a long term resolution sometimes the article must be left in a position the individual editors are uncomfortable with. Regards ^Khukri 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an experience of a huge discussion going nowhere (in terms of consensus). As you seem to have taken a role of mediating admin, could you please share your plan on how we will get to some reasonable point. Thanks. -- Ashot ^(talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first point is to find a base position with verifiable information and sources and then take it from there to find a neutrally worded lede. So I've picked out a couple of key areas I see in the reversions, to find out which positions can be reliably sourced. If someone disagrees with it, this should be easy to show through sources and then we can look to see if the sources meet the guidelines. It's not too difficult to work out most of the actors position in this discussion from the boxes splashed across their page; I'd like to say though I'm interested in their viewpoints and I certainly don't understand the nuances, at the end of the day I'm interested in the status of the monastery now, and in the past and demonstrating this with as I've said previously sources that meets the guidelines. So ball is in your (collective) courts bring me your sources for perusal. Cheers ^Khukri 15:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say the fact I am an admin is irrelevant, I'm am mediating as a neutral party who has certain insights in how wikipedia works, my only previous involvement with this article can be seen above and started from when I refused to speedy delete the article. And though Verman1 has asked for my involvement I have had no prior interaction with the editor and at this time do not hold any firm positions to either side of the discussion. ^Khukri 15:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response.

My concern is that this may become de-jure vs de-facto dispute (e.g. NKR map vs Azerbaijan map). Both sides will have mutually exclusive arguments. Any idea how to deal with this? -- Ashot ^(talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>Firstly lets have a look at the questions and we'll see where we go from there :) Cheers ^Khukri 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh is perhaps a moot point because we already have a couple hundred or so articles which state the political status of the region. We should mention that Nagorno-Karabakh is currently a de facto independent republic which, to date, is not internationally recognized but almost mention that it is within Azerbaijan's de jure borders. The line regarding Caucasian Albania, however, is not so open to interpretation. Amaras was a monastery under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Apostolic Church and there's no evidence to indicate that the Caucasian Albanian Church had any control over it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input ^Khukri 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I want you to consider this article regarding Caucasian Albanian churches in Karabakh. [11] I also want to inform you that history of Caucasian Albanian church ended in 19th century when Russian Empire occupied Caucasus. Russian authorities forcibly abolished Caucasian Albanian Church and annexed to the Armenian Apostolic Church. As conclusion, it is easy for anyone to falsely claim Caucasian Albanian Church as an Armenian Church. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to post the link. Just quickly looking through the article, it certainly doesn't appear to be what I would call neutral or a realiably sourced. The article Church of Caucasian Albania has a less biased approach to the writing though I would like someone's input on this article.

The affiliation question seems to be the inverse of the regional question. If one accepts that regions can and has change 'ownership' since the monastary was built, such as Armenian, Azeri, NKR etc then why is a church locked to it's affiliation of some 170 years ago? Some of you are saying the affiliation is what the church is now, and some are looking at it maybe how it was consecrated, would this be a fair assessment? Looking at the {{Infobox religious building}} states "info religious_affiliation — the religion and/or denomination the building is used for", though I will ask them for further clarification on the timing if that is present or originally. ^Khukri 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that is just a canard which is popular only in Azerbaijan, and enjoys no scholarly support outside of that republic. Tsitsernavank is just one of several dozen Armenian churches in and near Karabakh which Azerbaijani scholars have rechristened as "Caucasian Albanian", going so far as to falsify and distort primary sources to prove that these churches have no connection to Armenia nor Armenians. Caucasian Albania had lost all its ethnic and political connotations by the ninth century and while a Caucasian Albanian diocese existed up until the early nineteenth century, its members considered themselves as Armenians and nothing else.

Further, this is not a simple content dispute we are discussing but an attempt at distorting history and I have already lost count on how much talk pages I have repeated this argument on other related articles. Verman himself is unable to produce a single reliable source to support his claims and instead has resorted to edit warring on a massive scale to revert changes he disagrees with. The unreliability of sources published in or distributed by Azerbaijan, as well as online websites, has been mentioned elsewhere but it is worth repeating here. One of the most prominent historians on the matter, Robert Hewsen, has cautioned:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

I don't see this as a good-faith discussion and it's rather disconcerting to see that the one version which numerous editors have worked on, with complete references, reliable sourcing and neutral wording, has been replaced now with one which is packed with out-and-out lies and glaring omissions. I know that this is a standard practice among administrators who want to help mediate a matter, who often revert the article to the "wrong version", but some better discretion would have been desirable here. Leaving aside the de facto-de juro debate, which itself has been handled smoothly elsewhere, I really don't see much point in this discussion, when not a reasonable argument has not been brought up to warrant mediation. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully appreciate your frustration but the minute I decide an arbitary point changes then I am taking one side over the other. I'm upset to see you don't see much point in continuing the disscussion, especially from someone who is clearly knowledgeable about how wikipedia works, all I can do is thank you for taking the time to answer the questions, the only person so far. I found the Atlas yesterday when I was looking for maps of the area at the time of the churches construction, which was the basis of one of two sources for the fourth point, though I haven't read the text though the quote is interesting. Thank you.

To the other editors though the questions might seem to too basic and doesn't capture a nuance or level of discussion you would like to see, once a baseline has been established it is then much easier to continue on to the trickier subjects. So I ask you to state your agreement with the points or refute with valid sources. Regards ^Khukri 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I note, the article was well-referenced and probably enough-discussed prior to edits of Verman1 (see the references section in the article and the discussion above). Furthermore, Verman1 even didn't bother himself to preliminary discuss his changes in the talkpage stating that some of his points are "not negotiable", which is probably not the correct conduct, is it?

Hence, I have a counter-proposal: revert the article to its initial condition and let Verman1 or any other editor simply put ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[dubious – discuss]} notes where they think there are problematic points as per his/their opinion. -- Ashot ^(talk) 06:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reject your views, as I don't think that initial condition of the article was "well-referenced". I would rather call it as one-sided. The views of other side was largely ignored, they have been dubbed as "liers" and most notably internationally recognized laws was ignored. Unfortunately, there are a lot of articles of this kind and these are making Wikipedia as unreliable source of information. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four simple questions, I'm beginning to think both side are avoiding answering them. ^Khukri 06:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to avoid these questions, on the contrary, I tried to answer them with my posts in more detailed way. One more thing is that I still couldn't get my answer regarding question when this church was "historically" in Armenia? Answering to this question would help us to understand the issue better, as there is strong evidence showing that Caucasian Albanian Church was forcibly annexed to the Armenian Apostolic church, thus it is very easy to claim Albanian church as Armenian. Regarding concrete answers, I would say 1)yes, 2)yes ,3)yes 4)no. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only I have answered, but also proposed a more accurate statement regarding the 2nd question. You also have responses regarding the 4th. You ask others to answer your questions, could you please be kind to argument why you do not accept my proposal? -- Ashot ^(talk) 07:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already responded to it in my response to Marshall about the wrong version.

I can't see where you have agreed to my four statements. It's better to answer all of the questions and not pick which ones we wish to answer, that way there is no ambiguity later on when we try to look for a neutral and sourced wording. So can I take your response to be; 1) yes 2) yes 3) yes and 4) yes? Thanks in advance ^Khukri 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was clear enough to convey that 1) yes, 2) partially, hence no, 3) yes, 4) yes + and so what?

You are an admin and most probably more knowledgeable of Wikipedia. Could you please refer to Wikipedia guidelines that make your mediation in this style legitimate? -- Ashot ^(talk) 09:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the questions. Why do you only partially agree with 2)? When I look at the Nagorno-Karabakh article the region shows as being within Azerbijian. Please remember these are not trick questions, but just a means of understanding the subject better.

Now as for my involvement, I have been asked as part of WP:DR process in what would be considered informal mediation. Wikipedia doesn't codify a formulaic response to mediation and what I have done is an approach I use regularly in the 'real world' to achieve a starting point with commonly understood points and develop this into achieving consensus over the areas of disagreement. I am a neutral party, if you do not wish my involvement then I am obliged to accept this as I cannot force my involvement upon this article and any form of mediation can only work if all parties are actually interested in achieving consensus and not just pushing their points of view. My only response would be then to ask Verman1 to seek formal mediation, via WP:RFM or if one party were still not willing to continue the resolution process, then WP:RFC would be the next recourse. Regards ^Khukri 11:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your effort, but I think you should keep open to other proposals.

To my view this is what happened: An editor made unreferenced alterations to a referenced text (vandalism?) without prior discussion in the talk page. And then you come and say ok, answer my questions. Well, my friend, but shouldn't you first revert those alterations, call Verman1 to the discussion page and only then mediate and propose answering your questions?

As per my disagreement to the second statement. There is a 20 years old de-facto independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the mentioned region, so I only partially agree with your statement. -- Ashot ^(talk) 11:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and the support. The reason I asked was I wanted to differentiate between my first two points of the republic v the region. But I'll wait till a few others have responded and then we can start to make some head way with creating a lede that is correct with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and will hopefully be acceptable to everyone. As I hope we'll all agree trying to resolve the regions issues with respect to wikipedia in an article about a monastery is maybe not the correct place, so hopefully neutrality will move the debate to a more appropriate forum. Though hopefully once this is resolved I can point you all in the right direction for maybe starting an RFC that can be used a reference and naming convention for all these disputes. Let's face it Macedonia, Ireland and I believe ~~Taiwan~~ Republic of China have all gone to ArbCom to achieve some form of definitive position for Wikipedia. Cheers ^Khukri 14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrong Version

I've moved this here from my talk page as it involved this process as a whole

Kurkri, could you please tell me what do you, as a neutral editor, think of these edits taking into consideration that they were made without prior discussion. -- Ashot ^(talk) 15:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khukri :) any edit maybe construed as WP:BOLD and is in fact one of the first steps in WP:BRD which is a good tool for unblocking a situation. Now nowhere in the talk page is there any form of consensus what so ever, and there hasn't been since I saved the article from deletion. Now to discuss the edit itself it was changing unsourced information from one set of information to another and is the crux of this geopolitical debate. As I alluded to in the message above this debate shouldn't be happening on an article about a monastery. The question I would ask in return was the information about Monastery being in NKR discussed and consensus achieved prior to be included, as this was the primary reason someone put it up for speedy deletion I believe. I would hope reading through the talk pages that you would agree this maybe wasn't the case. I appreciate you are not happy with the version that is there but as I said to Marshal, for a short amount of uncomfortable, we maybe able to put the article in a better position. ^Khukri 15:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that this church is "Caucasian Albanian" is based on absolutely no evidence, no reliable source other than a random Azeri hate-propaganda website. On the other hand, there are numerous reliable sources attesting to the Armenian origin of the building. Indeed, Caucasian Albania has always been in the PLAINS of what is now Azerbaijan, and has had little to do with the mountainous region of Armenia where this church is situated. So until evidence from the OTHER side is shown, I see little reason why this article should maintain that this monastery is "Caucasian Albanian." (We've got MORE than one university in the U.S. claiming that it is Armenian, and I'm not even talking about the Armenian universities in Armenia... And on the other side we've got an unofficial Azeri website written in Azeri... At best, the article can mention that AZERI sources claim X and Y [that is, that the church is Caucasian Albanian, and that Armenian, American, and all other sources refute this]). I have reverted to my previous version which is amply sourced. Serouj (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war is getting ridiculous. Khukri, you, as an admin, should realize that the California State University Fresno website's page on Armenian architecture is a reliable source, and that an obscure website (Medenivvet.az which is not even online anymore) is not. I don't understand your logic behind accepting Vermin's version of the article which REMOVES the above-noted reliable source. Dig deeper. It's not always that the other side has a valid argument. Vermin has not provided even ONE reliable source, and the debate on the geography of Caucasian Albania and how it pertains to Tsitsernavank is ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Serouj (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the website that Vermin quotes is inaccessible: Medenivvet.az! Serouj (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As of now I believe that you, Khukri, are neutral, but I find it unacceptable that you hold the status quo on alterations of Verman (ones that at least were a misconduct in terms of not being preliminary discussed in the talkpage). -- Ashot ^(talk) 08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical location of Caucasian Albania

As we know through the historical accounts that the territory of Caucasian Albania was located to the North of Kura River, bordering the Armenian historical territories of Utik and Artsakh the map of Caucasian Albania. Tsitsernavank Monastery is located within the Armenian historical territory of Syunik (not to be confused with the current province of Syunik of RA) the map of Syunik and Artsakh.--Kevorkmail (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The maps that you have cited are made by Robert Hewsen, an american scholar with armenian origins. I don't think that this could be used as neutral source. Regards,--Verman1 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevorkmail has made the effort to provide sources for some of the questions I have asked above. Questioning the providence of the source by all means is acceptable, but one should normally do it with sources of similar calibre that is contrary to what has already been said, consider it a game of source Top Trumps. Cheers ^Khukri 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked on my talk page to give an opinion about the above comment by Verman1. It is not acceptable to criticise sources on the basis of the alleged (see WP:BLP!) ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are. Advancing such opinions is misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Instead, all sources and authors should be evaluated only on the basis of their reliability as set forth in WP:RS. I am warning Verman1 that more comments in this vein may result in sanctions per WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. Sandstein 20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was my mistake from my side, as I am not fully familirized of all Wikipedia rules. Thank you for informing me. I would like to draw your attention to here, as I have been encountered with such claims before too. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, Kevorkmail will post some maps affirming Armenian position. How about these maps:

There are much maps which can be posted here. All the maps I posted show that Caucasian Albania stretched much more to the west than Armenians claim, i.e. to the west of Kura River, and surely Agoglan Monastery (Tsitsernavank Monastery) located in Lachin is an Albanian monastery. This monastery together with other Albanian monasteries in Karabakh and Azerbaijan were given to Armenian diocese in 1836 (Read Church of Caucasian Albania for more details). Before that, Karabakh was part of Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, Mongol dynasties of Ilkhanate, Jalayirids, Azerbaijani Turk states Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu, Safavid Empire, Karabakh Khanate and Elisabethpol Governorate (Russian Empire) and independent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. So, this monastery was built during the time when Caucasian Albania existed and then for centuries it was under Persian and Azerbaijani Turk rule, some brief time under Armenian rule. But this article is full of the sources which are written by Armenian writers. Surely, they will say the church was Armenian. 90 per cent of source is Armenian. This article needs neutral sources and good faith edits, not POV information. Dighapet (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return back to the origins of the history, this is the map of Armenia (Major and Minor) in 387 AD according to Ashkharatsuyts composed by historian Anania Shirakatsi of the 7th century (during which Azerbaijan never existed). Here, we can clearly find that the state of the Aluans (Caucasian Albania with its capital Kapalak or Gabala) has a shared border with the Armenian Kingdom, separated by Kura river. Hope this can put an end to the discussion regarding the geographical territory of Caucasian Albania.--Kevorkmail (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map for year 387 AD, composed in 7th century? I see very big time interval between them. I suppose we cannot take it as reliable source. On the other hand, this church was built 5-6th centuries, not in 4th century. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin, I have a simple question for you: what is your reliable source that posits that this monastery is Caucasian Albanian? There's a California State University publication that establishes the Armenian origin of this church AND itself has a bibliography of over 15 sources. Do you have a more reliable source than a California university publication? Serouj (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Vermin I think it's a false assumption to declare that a source that is created centuries after the event as unacceptable. Most historical analysis is carried out years, decades or centuries after the event. One only needs to look at Bede, Claudius, Plutarch, Aristotle and many many more to see historical works and treatises that are accepted as sources nowadays that were written hundreds of years after the events. One should examine the providence of the source itself, not using sweeping generalisations to rule them out. ^Khukri 07:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to address me as Verman :) Talking about this issue, I see other side having no patience against territorial sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Moreover, editors like Serouj posting more and more racist comments about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan-related sources that I am not going to show tolerance against. There are enough maps posted in here showing that during construction period of the temple this area belonged to Caucasian Albania. The fact about forceful annexation of Caucasian Albanian church is widely ignored in the discussion (unfortunately, this is very important point). One more important question for Serouj, who claims that all California State University publications are reliable sources. Then why we are ignoring internationally accepted political map of World countries, where Lachin is shown inside Azerbaijan? (not even inside disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region) I really appreciate Khukri's attempts to mediate, but I think some questions like territorial sovereignty of any country cannot be discussed here, as it will lead to political discussion (which will take us to question of protesting or supporting occupation policy of Armenia) --Verman1 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Mr. Verman does not recognize the importance of the historic accounts and manuscripts! For your information, "Ashkharatsuyts" is the oldest geographical book-manuscript shown in Matenadaran museum.--Kevorkmail (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of my involvement

First of all I would like to thank you all for having patience while we looked through the issue. This is a long post and I ask all editors to read it a couple of times through before replying.

Unfortunately it is my belief that none of the actors involved in these discussion are actually interested in mediation and are more focused on pushing their partisan interests instead of discussing the improvement to an article about a monastery. That shames us all, as this article has a lot of history and it's that we should be discussing and trying to improve the article, not everyone's personal agenda. It is also a poor reflection that there are ArbCom rulings in place with enforcements being applied and very little with respect to RFCs to help guide editors who wish to become involved.

Over the last few days, I've tried to read as much as I can on the the admins noticeboards, RFCs, ArbComs and discussion I've had with other editors on and off wikipedia to gain a better perspective on these articles. I would like to give you my thoughts on this article and maybe moving these disputes away from here and to a more appropriate forum such as RFC.

There are two main contentions in this article 1) location 2) affiliation

I think the discussions of de-jure and de-facto are pertinent discussions when we are addressing geopolitical issues, but for purely geographic issues, it is my belief that Wikipedia has to respect international law and that which is recognised by the international community. I think this follows the guides laid down in the Macedonia and Ireland naming conventions and is prevalent in how Wikipedia refers to what is commonly known as Taiwan as the Republic of China. It is my belief that the monastery should be noted as being in Azerbaijan, as it would be remiss of an encyclopaedia to refer to a location that wasn't recognised; BUT I also think to help remove the discussions from here and after a discussion I had with Sandstein I don't think it's against Wikipedia's policy to mention that it is also located in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. This exists and I found a number of high quality sources such as the BBC that can be added to show that status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic within Azerbaijan. My wording would be along the lines of

“

..... is a 5th-6th century church and former monastery in Azerbaijan in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The monastery is five kilometres from the border of Armenia's province of Syunik.

”

The article should not cast judgement on the status of the area, just report that which can be sourced.

The affiliation is a slightly different matter, as this is about sources and the criticisms being laid against each source requires a more expert knowledge than I have and and should be examined by someone who would take a neutral perspective. From my examination of the sources I believe that the monastery is of Armenian origin and can be shown to be of similar construction to other buildings of it age in that area. I think the religious denomination is debatable, but what I do believe is that the affiliation of the church cannot be claimed as being Church of Caucasian Albania. At one time at it's creation or during it's history this may have been true, currently it is not the case. I recommend that it's affiliation is removed from article until such time as non-partisan source can be presented that shows the churches current denomination.

What I have written above is only my beliefs from having looked through what you have presented, I have given reasons why I think this is the case but whether you chose to follow them or not is up to you. I write this as an editor no different to yourselves and not as an admin or in any form of trying to mediate your disputes. I would ask all editors to ask themselves the question are you interested in the article about a monastery that could possibly have a connection with St George or pushing your own agendas? I think those of you who are active in this area should start an RFC to once and for all clear this up, follow the example set down by your fellow Greek and Macedonian editors to try and come to an agreement and a definitive naming convention. I will make no changes to this article without discussing it first, it would be remiss of me not to remind you that other admins will take extremely dim views of edit warring here and will apply sanctions as per arbitration enforcement with far less discussion.

If I can be of any help or to point you in the right direction please don't hesitate to ask.

Regards ^Khukri 11:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally appreciate your efforts very much. But it should be really difficult to mediate a discussion initiated through a misconduct of a user probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules (i.e. Verman1). We had a pretty-sourced article which did not need undiscussed alterations. So it was unclear for me why those changes should not be reverted and their initiator called to the talkpage for argumentation of his/her view points.

By saying this I still share you ideas regarding "an article about a monastery". But why should not everything be logically grounded prior to the start of the mediation process?

Anyway thanks again for your genuine efforts. -- Ashot ^(talk) 13:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khukri, you should not be so downcast and there is no reason to look so at the matter in such a pessimistic manner. The fact is that your assistance on this page was requested on ill-faith grounds since there is no legitimate content dispute here. As you yourself have come to the realization, Verman has not adduced a single reliable source to back up his claims regarding the origins of this church and has resorted to an unpleasant habit of edit warring to foist his views upon the article, even after he was told of its consequences. He has dismissed perfectly reliable sources on the basis that they are Armenian and hence are incapable of writing on the matter in an objective fashion. Now that he sees that his ill-faith request for mediation will not go his way, he has requested that the article be locked, this being very ironic in light of all his reverts. And the lead section on geography is hardly a lost cause: all you have to do is visit the dozens of articles on towns and villages and Karabakh and see how, more or less, both sides of the picture are neutrally presented.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued

I asked for page-protection on the basis that reverted article includes information about this region being part of unrecognized country. Second, there was no reliable and neutral sources, where we can see that during construction period this area wasn't part of Caucasian Albania. I understand the rules of Wikipedia, also I would like to see Wikipedia to be the source of reliable information. This is my first priority, when I began to revert this page, in order to include correct and true information about this region. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a duty to tell the reader that while Nagorno-Karabakh is nominally a part of Azerbaijan, it is also a de facto independent republic. To not do so would be a willful omission of information, and one which you have already carried out on the Kosalar, Lachin article as you neglect to mention that the village's de facto name is Tsitsernavank. This is not the first time we are having this conversation on Wikipedia and your attitude is akin to leaving the other editors with only two options: "it's my way, take it or leave it." When you do not make compromises, choose to revert continuously other editors on sight because you think they are in the "wrong" even after you are warned not to do so, do not substantiate your claims with clear, reliable sources, denigrate the other side by calling out their ethnicity as an impediment to their neutrality, then you will see why your arguments are not treated seriously. That is against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia and I'm surprised why you have refused to change that sort of disruptive behavior. You have yet to give any substantial reasons as to why authors like Robert Hewsen, a peer-reviewed Western scholar, and a professor from Cal State University, Fresno are unreliable, other than the fact that both their authors are Armenian, which is unacceptable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things are really getting sad here, since some users are hopelessly trying to turn down the historical facts of 1500 years old. The discussion has become a real waste of time due to the stubbornness of Mr. Verman who is trying to turn the article into a field where he can publicize the Azerbaijani propaganda. The article of this Armenian church was introduced on a scientific basis supported with reliable 3rd-party sources and references, along with the accounts of old historians, but it seems that there are some groups (unfortunately considerd as intellectuals) who are trying to destroy the history in any mean for their own purposes.--Kevorkmail (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more very important point that most editors here are ignoring. Lachin region is not part of disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, this must be regarded as occupied territory. We have several UN resolutions regarding occupied territories of Azerbaijan. I am not supporter to begin competition, in order to see who is more stubborn. We have facts, one saying this is original Albanian Church, which was forcibly armenized. On the other hand some scholar saying that this originally was Armenian Church, while they fail to bring evidences showing this area being part of Armenia during 5th-6th centuries (construction period of the temple). I am interested in more parties to be involved to the discussion, as there is lack of information. It is very sad that there is hard to find neutral mediator (like Khukri) on this article. It would be perfect, if here will appear a mediator, who will end this discussion in the best way. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at sources which say the region the monastry was founded was in Caucasian Albania. Historian Igor Kuznetsov, expert in Udins wrote (http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/udiny.html):

1. Утик вошел в состав Армении при Арташесе I (189 — 160 гг. до н. э.). Агванк оставался независимым. После раздела Армении между Ри мом и Ираном (387 г. н. э.) Утик (а также Арцах и часть Пайтакарана) был присоединен к Агван-ку, из которых образовалось особое персидское марзпанство (наместничество). С этих пор утвер дилось расширенное понимание Албании, (парф., араб. Арран, груз. Эр-Ран), включающей боль шую часть части территории современной респуб лики Азербайджан. До 510 г. н. э. в Албании сохранились царская власть (местная ветвь парфян ской династии — Аршакидов, которые правили и в Армении: Вачаган I, Ваче, Урнайр, Иавчаган, Мерхаван, Сато, Асай, Есвален, Ваче, Вачаган III), после упразднения которой правили персидские марзпаны (наместники) и албанские князья Мих-раниды, признавшие верховенство Сасанидского Ирана. В VI — VII вв. Утик в значительной сте пени был уже арменизирован. I translated: Utik was included into Armenia during Artashes I (189 - 160 B.C.). Aghuank (Caucasian Albania) was remaining independent. After division of Armenia between Rome and Iran (387 B.C.) Utik (with Artsakh and Paytarakan) were added to Aghuank which created a "marzpanstvo" (vicegerency). Since these times, expansive understanding of Albania was confirmed (Arabs called it Arran, Georgians Er-Ran), which included the major part of the Azerbaijanian Republic. Until 510 B.C. tsar rule was remaining in Albania (local branch of Parthian dynasty of Arshakids which ruled Armenia: Vachagan I, Vache, Urnayr, Iavchagan, Merkhavan, Sato, Asay, Esvalen, Vache, Vachagan III), after which it was abolished and Persian marzpans (viceroys) and Albanian dukes Mihranids which accepted superiority of Sasanid Iran, ruled the region. In the VI - VII century, Utik was significantly Armenized.

2. С VIII в. в связи с конфессиональными, по литическими и культурными изменениями (слия ние с Армянской церковью и т. д.) письменным языком и языком культа удин становится армян ский. I translated: Since VIII century, because of confessional, political and cultural changes (annexation to Armenian church and so on), written and culture language of Udins becomes Armenian.

3. Ко времени Агуэнско-го собора (488 г. или 493 г.), созванного агванс-ким царем Вачаганом III Благочестивым, мест ная церковь имела уже своего архиепископа (ре зиденция г. Партав-Бердаа) и 8 епархий (Партав-ская, Кабалинская, Гардманская, Шакинская, Пайтакаранская, Амарасская и др.). I translated:By the time of Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) diet (488 or 493 A.D.), which was called by Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) tsar Holy Vachagan III, local church already had its own archbishop (residence in Partav-Barda) and 8 eparchy units (Partav, Gabala, Gardman, Shaki, Paytarakan, Amaras and other) So, Amaras Monatery is also Albanian.

4. Когда в 590 г. византийский император Маврикий учредил на своей территории альтер нативный Халкидонитский католикосат для ар мян, Албанская церковь приостановила отноше ния с расколовшейся "отступившей" Армянской церковью. Глава Албанской церкви стал рукополагаться на месте (учреждение католикосата), кро ме того к рукоположению от Албанского като ликоса переходит Сюник, бывший под юрисдик цией Армянской церкви. I translated: When in 590, Byzantine emperor Mauritius established on his territory Chalcedon Catholicossate for armenians, Armenian church stopped its relations with divided Armenian church. Leader of Albanian church became ruling on his spot (establishment of catholicossate), besides in rule of Albanian Catholicossate was transfered Syunik, which used to be under Armenian church. So, you see, when Aghoghlan (Tsitsernavank) monastery was built, it was built when the territories and church were under Caucasian Albania until 705 when Arabs who occupied region abolished Albanian church.

5. Неудачная попытка перейти в халкидонит-ство была предпринята при агванском католико се Нерсесе Бакуре (688 — 704 гг.), после низложе ния которого Албанская церковь потеряла авто кефалию и вошла в состав Армянской (агванс-кий католикос рукополагался армянским). Фор мально агванский католикосат (резиденция в Ган-дзасаре, Нагорный Карабах) просуществовал до середины XIX в., затем был упразднен, а соответ ствующие приходы Армянской церкви переподчинялись непосредственно Эчмиадзинскому като-ликосату (Адербеджанская и Арцахская епархии). I translated: Unsuccesful try to be passed under Chalcedon Council was made under Aghuank (Caucasian Albanian) catholicos Nerses Bakur (688-704) and after that Albanian church lost its autocephaly and was attached to Armenian church (Aghuank catholicos confered orders from Armenian). Officially Aghuank Catholicothassate (residence in Gandzasar, Nagorno-Karabakh) existed until middle of XIX century, and was then abolished, and correposponding laity of Armenian church was re-subdued directly to Echmiadzin Catholicossate.

So, main points are: - the church was built during the time when Karabakh was in Caucasian Albania, I already gave you maps. - the church was built by Albanians because it was under Albanian church whic also supervised Syunik from 590 until 705. Dighapet (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this evidence is indirect and doesn't say anything about the church itself. But even then, the borders during the period of late antiquity and early Middle Ages were very fluid and it is well-known that by the ninth century, Caucasian Albania had ceased to possess any ethnic connotation and its people had been thoroughly absorbed by the Armenians, Georgians, and Arabs. The Church of Caucasian Albania was Armenian in everything but name only and its long-overdue abolition in the nineteenth century was more of a formality than some sinister plot hatched by the Armenians and Russians. The Caucasian Albanians themselves were very closely linked to the Armenians: their church was founded and remained as a subordinate of the Armenian Church, its alphabet was probably created by Mesrop Mashots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, and they, were if anything, the junior partner in the relationship.

We have third-party scholars saying that the Tsitsernvank Church conforms to the early Christian Armenian-style architecture and primary sources which say that it was consecrated as an Armenian Church. This discussion is simply based on so many ill-faith premises; the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to add the information and yet not a single reliable source to support Varmin's claims has been forthcoming. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above by Verman and as already clear to us from the sources in the article and the maps somebody presented above (Map 1, Map 2, Map 3, Map 4, Map 5, Map 6, Map 7), the monastery was built in 5-6th centuries when Caucasian Albania when it contained the parts south of Kura River and the present day Lachin district of Azerbaijan. Nobody says it wasn't a part of Armenian Kingdom at some point, but the fact of the matter is that it was constructed by Caucasian Albanians when the territory the monastery was built during was inside of Caucasian Albania. Also, considering the fact that the Church of Caucasian Albania was transferred by Russians to Armenian Church in 1830s when all Caucasian Albanian monasteries, churches were subdued to Armenian diocese, the claim that this monastery along with other monasteries built at that time, are Armenian, is contestable. As far as the location goes, as per Khuri above, this should not even be contested that the monastery is located in the Republic of Azerbaijan. So, the map and location should clearly reflect that. It can also say that it currently lies under de-facto rule of unrecognized NKR. --NovaSkola (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume that your argumentation is enough to state that the monastery was built in the state of Caucasian Albania, this still doesn't mean that it is not Armenian (there are hundreds of Armenian churches all over the world outside Armenia but they are still Armenian). As of now all reliable third-party sources we have claim that Tsitsernavank is Armenian and of Armenian style. -- Ashot ^(talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert of the epoch, but additionally, please note that in Map 2 and Map 5 Tsitsernavank is right on the border of Armenia and Albania, in Map 3 it is clearly not in Albania, in Map 4, Map 6 and Map 7 it is in Armenia. -- Ashot ^(talk) 14:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way. I don't know which way Mr.Ashot clearly sees that in some maps Kosalar is shown as a part of Armenia, moreover he doesn't show any argument, confirming that Armenian church was built instead of Caucasian Albanian church in the territory of Caucasian Albania. We see no compromise from other side, as they are getting more willing to play games, instead of giving careful consideration to the problem. First they strongly backed to the fact that the church was "Armenian", it was "built" in Armenia.However, after seeing strong proofs, confirming this area being part of Caucasian Albania during construction period of the temple, they began to claim that Caucasian Albanian church was subordinate to Armenian church (or claiming that Armenian church was built in Caucasian Albania). All these claims have no basis, have no evidence. I still hope that we can find a mediator who can end the discussion, as this discussion is going to be pointless because of other side. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This note of yours is simply unacceptable in the light of the discussion and argumentation preceding to it. -- Ashot ^(talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading this exchange and decided to give my opinion. Armenian Church is not an ethnicity, there were at times Assyrians and even Georgians from the Armenian Church which is recognized as an independent Church! Having said that, the quote provided above: "Byzantine emperor Mauritius established on his territory Chalcedon Catholicossate for armenians, Armenian church stopped its relations with divided Armenian church." This somehow was true, which was after 590 to 705, but this monastery was already build then, and what is discribed did last about a century. So the Church was build as an "Armenian Church" and at worst case, could have lost affiliation with the Armenian Church to become a Chalcedon Church not Albanian for a hundred year, this was abolished when the Arabs invaded the area at which time they were reunited (worst case) again. So at not time, was there any independent Albanian Church, which was not recognized as part of the Armenian Church, particularly not in the region where Tsitsernavank Monastery was built and none of the maps provided clearly document that, as they are only geographical, and say nothing about this monastery. Unless you can provide any evidence directly claimin the monastery to be Albanian, there is no point in debating about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidovler (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The protection has expired and I suggest we revert back to its original form before verman decided to tinker with it.--Moosh88 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original form was one-sided and didn't have any neutral source. It is clear that any changes in this page, until the end of discussion, will be regarded as vandalism. We have enough sources to claim that during construction period the temple was built in Caucasian Albania, it had affiliation to Caucasian Albanian Church and was forcibly armenized in later centuries. We have not any single evidence claiming this monastery originally to be Armenian. Albanian churches was built even after the invasion of arabs. It was never part of Armenian Church until forcible annexation. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verman's comments above now sound like a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has essentially admitted to the fact that he has no reliable sources which directly call this church Caucasian Albanian in origin. His above reasoning, to say the least, is absurd. Nevermind the fact that CA's borders were so fluid, but even if we are to assume that the church was built a time when its borders extended across the the Kura River (by dint of fifth century Sasanian administrative policy, not any extension of CA's political and ecclesiastical influence in the region), that still doesn't mean that Armenians could not have constructed the church. This kind of stonewalling must end and unless Verman has any other evidence he can produce to back up his claims, further attempts to revert the page from when it was fully sourced to the unsourced, messy version that now stands, will be a borderline case of vandalism and disruption. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of Discussion

I think discussion over initial affiliation of this temple is over, as opposite side has no evidence to show against this above mentioned references. I am sure some users would want to add some POV and they are more than welcome to do that in discussion page. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk as an arbitrator as your version of this article is not supported with sources.--Kevorkmail (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid editing

I ask that all parties who have edited this recently to calm down, and to please avoid reverting edits more than twice per day. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected this article as well. Please confine your remarks to the talk page for the time being. BTW, I've never heard of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic but the New York Times tells me that this is genuine semi-independent disputed territory (see [12]). However this is just FYI and I hope you all can work it out. --rgpk (comment) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you could see from the article, this territory is separatist region and was occupied by armenian army. Putting armenian names in this article is totally unacceptable. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it is unacceptable, please re-read what I wrote above. ^Khukri 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is unacceptable is when you systematically write the word Armenian without capitilizing the first letter, while you do it, for any other language and ethnic group. Vidovler (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too noticed that he did not capitalize 'Armenian'. This is not the 1st time either.--Moosh88 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nagorno-Karabakh is a real place near Armenia, and which may or may not have been part of Armenia, but no, we can't have edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked (I've been absent from the site for a few weeks), I would like to point out that this article is a part of a series of articles that have been tied up several times in Arbitration. I highly suggest checking those decisions and, if necessary, asking for enforcement. --Bobak (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding naming of monastery

Could anyone please explain why should Azerbaijani (thus de jure local) naming can not be demonstrated in the article? --Verman1 (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because such name is your own or someone else's nationalist fantasy. That's why. It never existed in history. Winterbliss (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How local name could become a "nationalist fantasy"? --Verman1 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "local name" requires some locals that actually use it! However, a "fake nationalist fantasy that never existed in history" can still be inserted if sources are found that demonstrate its usage in propaganda statements. The propaganda statements are not RS so can't be used. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tsitsernavank Monastery.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake terms

Three editors have repeatedly restored fake content into the article: [13], [14], [15], and deceptively cited for that content two sources that do not even contain that content. "Armenian Apostolic" is not an architectural term, no monographs on Tsitsernavank Monastery uses that phrase to describe the architecture of the church or its builders (including the three that are cited in the lead to support its insertion in this article). Neither do any of the propaganda Azeri sources, including the two that are being cited to also support the usage of the phrase "Armenian Apostolic". The Azeri sources deny that the church was constructed by Armenians, period. They do not mention anything about it being or not being "Armenian Apostolic" (whatever that means) and their denial obviously does not refer to the MODERN-ERA religious affiliation of users of the church (the term "Armenia Apostolic" was not in existence at the time of this church's construction in the early-Christian era). Since we have 3 editors who can't even be bothered to look at sources, I am fact tagging the term "Apostolic". Unless sources are produced that use that specific term, I will delete it as unsourced. Restoring unsourced tagged content that has been deleted because it has remained unsourced for a reasonable period of time after its tagging is a violation of Wikipedia rules. I will revisit in a month and see if sources have been found. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please place this in your edit summaries every time you make an edit, or bring this to the Talk page of an article earlier. What you're doing is Edit warring, and if you keep this sort of behavior up, an administrator's going to place a block on your IP address. I believe your intended edit would be accepted if it was sent to a talk page rather than constantly restored.

As a comment, please follow the guidelines posted here when your'e conversing. I feel that your comments are generally disrespectful to us as editors and can be seen as personal attacks, and the phrasing that you provide as placed on the last part evokes you are the sole arbitrator of how things are done here, which is absolutely not the case (i.e. "I will delete it this way"). You're openly stating that you are going to violate community consensus on the phrasing, and while I appreciate more formal ways of attempting to change consensus (such as in proposed move discussions), openly violating community consensus is the type of behavior that ends up resulting in blocks. I appreciate you coming on to the talk page to discuss these changes, and I understand where you are coming from, but you do tend to lose some of your merit or credibility when you're speaking to us in this manner. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Community consensus" does not usurp the requirement for content to be based on sources - and on what basis can there said to be a community consensus on the content of an obscure article like this? However, it is a Wikipedia-wide community consensus that unsourced tagged content that has been deleted because it has remained unsourced for a reasonable period of time after its tagging cannot be restored unless restored with accompanying sources.

It's an Armenian church per sources, what other affiliation can it have other than Armenian Apostolic? We don't need sources for obvious things. Stop doing unhelpful and disruptive tags. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It's an Armenian church per sources, what other affiliation can it have other than Armenian Apostolic?" That is simply your POV. And based on what sources? Your comment just displays your ignorance of Armenian history. Let me shout it at you to try to make it clear to you, NONE OF THE SOURCES CITED use the term "Armenian Apostolic". "Armenian Apostolic" is a term coined in the modern-era, it did not exist when this church was constructed. "Armenian Apostolic" is also not a term that is ever used in academic sources dealing with medieval Armenian architecture. You will only find it in the context of 19th-C Armenian architecture, when churches are sometimes described as being Armenian Apostolic, or Armenian Catholic, or Armenian Protestant. And all content on Wikipedia must be supported by sources. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You started this thread with uncivil comments towards editors who reverted you Oodlescanoodles, InvadingInvader. You were asked to stop this and engage in conversations like a normal editor does on Wikipedia, but apparently, that's too much of a struggle for you based on the comment above; "That is simply your POV", "Your comment just displays your ignorance of Armenian history", "Let me shout it at you to try to make it clear to you, NONE OF THE SOURCES CITED" - This is not how you civilly conduct yourself here, if you still have major problems following WP:CIVIL, then go to twitter or somewhere else.

In regard to sources, they describe the monastery as Armenian [16]. Only Azeri source(s) deny this, which are WP:UNDUE. When it comes to apostolic, Armenians, which this church happens to belong to, clearly describe it as Armenian Apostolic [17], [18], [19]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@92.1.144.176: I recommend you read WP:OWN, but I’ll reference one important clause from it right here: “No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say”. Also, the Armenian Apolistic Church is the National Church of Armenia, and so every Christian church in Armenia or Armenian parts of countries can be assumed to be a member of that church. InvadingInvader (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA05/ERES1416.htm

[2] ttp://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=1247

[3] ttp://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?cid=1301

[1]

[2]

[3]